首页> 外文OA文献 >Incorporation, Total Incorporation, and Nothing but Incorporation?
【2h】

Incorporation, Total Incorporation, and Nothing but Incorporation?

机译:公司成立,完全公司成立,仅此而已?

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Kurt T. Lash’s The Fourteenth Amendment and the Privileges and Immunities of American Citizenship (2014) defends the view that the Fourteenth Amendment’s “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” cover only rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution. My own book, however, Equal Citizenship, Civil Rights, and the Constitution: The Original Sense of the Privileges or Immunities Clause (2015), reads the Clause to guarantee equality broadly among similarly situated citizens of the United States. Incorporation of an enumerated right into the Fourteenth Amendment requires, I say, national consensus such that an outlier state’s invasion of the right would produce inequality among citizens of the United States. Lash and I agree about a great deal, but this Article provides a focused explanation of the clash between our two books.Searchable electronic databases have produced an amazing variety of new evidence and argument related to the Fourteenth Amendment’s original meaning and the enumerated-right controversy. Lash’s book vividly shows that there is an enormous amount that the last seventy years of discussion of incorporation failed to uncover. Here, I raise six problems for Lash’s enumerated-rights-only view: (1) the gulf between the constitutional needs of the Founding and Reconstruction; (2) the inherent unabridgeability of federally enumerated rights through state action; (3) textual and historical complications for sharply distinguishing Article IV from the Fourteenth Amendment; (4) equality-focused interpretations of the Louisiana Cession language and of the Privileges or Immunities Clause, explaining the Clause in terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1866; (5) 1866 disputes over voting rights and indefiniteness, incomprehensible on the enumerated-rights-only view; and (6) subsequent-interpretation evidence, especially the use of the enumerated-rights-only view against the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
机译:库尔特·拉什(Kurt T. Lash)的《第十四修正案和美国公民的特权与豁免》(2014)辩护说,第十四修正案的“美国公民的特权或豁免”仅涵盖宪法其他部分列举的权利。但是,我自己的书《平等的公民权,公民权利和宪法:特权或豁免的原始意义条款》(2015年)读到该条款是为了广泛保证美国处于相似地位的公民之间的平等。我说,将枚举的权利纳入《第十四条修正案》需要全国共识,以使一个偏远州侵犯该权利会在美国公民之间造成不平等。我和拉什对此表示同意,但本文重点介绍了两本书之间的冲突。可搜索的电子数据库产生了令人惊讶的各种新证据和论点,涉及《第十四条修正案》的初衷和枚举权争议。拉什的书生动地表明,在过去的七十年中,关于公司合并的讨论都没有发现太多。在此,我为拉什的仅列举权利观点提出了六个问题:(1)建立与重建的宪法需求之间的鸿沟; (2)通过国家行动,联邦枚举的权利固有的不可侵犯性; (3)文字和历史上的复杂性,使第IV条与第14条修正案有明显区别; (4)以平等为重点的路易斯安那路易斯安那话语和特权或豁免条款的解释,并根据1866年《民权法》对条款进行解释; (5)1866年关于表决权和不确定性的争议,这仅是枚举权观无法理解; (6)后续解释的证据,尤其是对1875年《民权法》的枚举权利观点的使用。

著录项

  • 作者

    Green Christopher R.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2015
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号